I think the motivation is that they were doing it prior to the WTB's saying that it wasn't permitted, so they are trying to justify what they were doing retroactively. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mileshosky [mailto:n5zgt@swcp.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:25 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18576] Re: American Hospital Association waiver request The League-proposed language may meet their needs, but one has to wonder about their motivation for making such a disingenuous argument in the first place. Hopefully this isn't an example of, in the words of either Chris or Dan at the last board meeting, "once the genie is out of the bottle..." 73, Brian N5ZGT On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ wrote:

The attached waiver request was shared with us this morning.

The language we are proposing for 97.113(a)(3) would seem to meet their needs. That said, it seems disingenuous of AHA to argue that participating in a drill that is required in order to maintain your employer's accreditation is not "on behalf of" the employer.

Dave K1ZZ

<<Am Hospital Assoc_Request for Blanket Waiver Sec 97 113(a)_DATA-STAMP_2-17-2010.pdf>>

ARRL Director, Rocky Mountain Division On the web at www.RockyMountainDivision.org